W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2007

Re: First thoughts about infoset elaboration

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:44:18 +0000
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5blkjkuzgd.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Pat Hayes writes:

> knee-jerk: I'd not use 'quoting' as the label for what you define
> there. Its potentially misleading. Call it something like 'protecting'
> or 'masking' or some such. Its very like quoting, I know, but if it is
> quote then its a very special XML-elaboration-ish kind of quoting, and
> there are many other kinds.

Fair point, we'll maybe look for another name.

> Also, a genuine question: is there any use for a version of this which
> doesn't get deqoted on elaboration, an 'infinitely deep' protection?

I don't _think_ so. . .

By analogy with s-expressions, I'm not aware of any use-case which
motivates this, that is, we have

 (list (quote a) (quote (sublist b c))) --> (a (sublist b c))

but there is nothing I'm aware of which behaves as you describe, e.g.

 (list (quote a) (superquote (sublist b c))) --> (a (superquote (sublist b c)))

However, the fact that you ask the question suggests you may have some
precedent in mind?

ht
- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFv5ICkjnJixAXWBoRApGJAJ9bGfocIJh3y/xutaat4ykNcyLo3ACeLn1V
nEmPRKawW8MkCsblnl9Kk9I=
=YdYG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 30 January 2007 18:44:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:14 UTC